Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 151 posts

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#101

Post by luckylion »

bayindirh wrote: post #90
alehander42 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's extremely sad and it is truth that we, people, are doing horrible things to each other for a long time. I hope you find comfort (and I hope God blesses us with the wisdom to fight against our own internal passions). This shouldn't be about "this nation is bad, this nation is good". (saying it as a bulgarian, we also had complicated history with the Ottomans, but I think we can say we live peacefully with the o…

First of all, thank you. Hi Bulgarian friend! The thing is, there were many nations at play at that time. I have some documents in an archaic CD-ROM about the issue. I don't want to name names, but the number of rifles collected from Armenians during that time is enough to form a small, unorganized army at the area. I don't know if I can dig the images but, they were a lot. Turks and Armenians didn't hate each other,…

> The sad thing is, Turks don't hate Armenians, even today.

I'm sure that's true for some Turks. And many other Turks are extremely invested in hating Armenians, even after having lived in Europe for two generations.

> I do say bad things have happened to everyone, but labeling this as a planned and deliberate act is highly wounding

"eh, we both said things we shouldn't have, nobody is at fault here".

You're a genocide denier, it's pretty simple. And disgusting.

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#102

Post by bayindirh »

luckylion wrote: post #101
bayindirh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, thank you. Hi Bulgarian friend! The thing is, there were many nations at play at that time. I have some documents in an archaic CD-ROM about the issue. I don't want to name names, but the number of rifles collected from Armenians during that time is enough to form a small, unorganized army at the area. I don't know if I can dig the images but, they were a lot. Turks and Armenians didn't hate each other,…

> The sad thing is, Turks don't hate Armenians, even today. I'm sure that's true for some Turks. And many other Turks are extremely invested in hating Armenians, even after having lived in Europe for two generations. > I do say bad things have happened to everyone, but labeling this as a planned and deliberate act is highly wounding "eh, we both said things we shouldn't have, nobody is at fault here". You're a genoci…

> And many other Turks are extremely invested in hating Armenians.

I've never met with any such Turks. My circle of communication may not be globe-scale, but they're not many from my experience.

> even after having lived in Europe for two generations.

Unfortunately Turks in Europe is not a good representative sample for Turks living in Turkey, this's also sad and something we've fallen short about as a country.

> "eh, we both said things we shouldn't have, nobody is at fault here".

This is not what have intended to say, even by a huge margin.

> You're a genocide denier, it's pretty simple. And disgusting.

Thanks for your point of view. I'll have no comment about this.

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#103

Post by JadeNB »

apostacy wrote: post #93
JadeNB wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And maybe this is why we should consider the consequences of encouraging deplatforming of people we don't like. But it's as easy to point to the dire consequences of persisting in amplifying the voices of people spewing hateful rhetoric as it is to point to the people silenced to protect the interests of the powerful. I think treating this as a one-sided problem with an obvious answer does it an injustice.

> But it's as easy to point to the dire consequences of persisting in amplifying the voices of people spewing hateful rhetoric as it is to point to the people silenced to protect the interests of the powerful. I think treating this as a one-sided problem with an obvious answer does it an injustice. I don't think it is as easy to prove that something has been censored, that's the problem. There is not transparency. Ma…

> In practice, you either you support freedom of speech, or you support billionaires and dictators arbitrarily removing and editing what we say.

I think that this is a false dichotomy, even if preceded by "in practice", because it follows the practice of conflating the freedom to speak with the freedom to be heard.

I support people's right to say what they please. I don't think that people have any inherent right to be heard saying what they please, even if I personally think that the things that they are saying are important and should be heard.

I support anyone's right not to amplify others' disgusting sentiments. When a private business is used to provide the platform for that speech, I support its right not to host speech that it (not I) finds disgusting, or objectionable, for any reason, even if I disagree with that reason. This is nothing new—it's always been the case, for example, that publishers didn't publish books that they determined to be disgusting or objectionable, and that their reasons for so determining could be lofty, or base, or completely counter to my own reasons.

Given the prominence of Facebook and Twitter as global communications platforms, this gives their owners disproportionate influence over whose voices are heard. That's the problem. Requiring Facebook and Twitter to amplify everyone's voices equally won't fix that problem.

(I have no idea what will fix the problem, to be clear, short of "how about everyone stops using Facebook and Twitter and we switch to a forum that somehow combines global reach with democratic moderation", which only requires (1) someone design the perfect such platform free from any possibility of abuse, and then turns its reins over to the masses, and (2) everyone agrees to use it, and so should be easy.)

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#104

Post by bjourne »

HappyDreamer wrote: post #44

This hate is a bit present, still today. In Stockholm, Sweden, 5 years ago: "Death to the Armenian dogs", said B. Leylani, who was, back then, the vice president of the Turkish National Association of Sweden. The spectators (Turkish extremists?) were cheering. Later he had to resign (there are also, of course, kind and reasonable people in that organization, who don't want any more genocides, and I presume they didn'…

You'll find the same sentiments among Russians, Moroccans, Israelis, Japanese, Serbians... The Germans may be almost unique in that they took full responsibility for the crimes their state committed.

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#105

Post by enriquto »

29athrowaway wrote: post #100
enriquto wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, not. And neither Spain does, which is a shame. What is the point of your question?

France is always pontificating about "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" and all that kumbaya stuff (which are great ideas, btw), but in practice, some of what they've done in their colonies and their behavior in conflicts is questionable af. I went to an Argelian restaurant some time ago, and the guy there told me that historically, French soldiers demanded that Argelian women have sex with them, and if they refused they…

I agree that the French state is extremely hypocritical in its self-righteousness towards other countries. That does not make the Turkish state any less evil in its denying of the Armenian genocide. And while hypocritical, it is not wrong that the French pressure the Turks to acknowledge their genocide. I would be happy also if France acknowledged all its wrongdoings in Africa as well.

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#106

Post by bayindirh »

alehander42 wrote: post #94
bayindirh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, thank you. Hi Bulgarian friend! The thing is, there were many nations at play at that time. I have some documents in an archaic CD-ROM about the issue. I don't want to name names, but the number of rifles collected from Armenians during that time is enough to form a small, unorganized army at the area. I don't know if I can dig the images but, they were a lot. Turks and Armenians didn't hate each other,…

Yes: we should be honest about atrocities against turks as well. I admit that it's possible that this happened even in Bulgaria, sadly. And I am sure bulgarian historians hide some of this stuff, the same way probably armenian historians are biased, and turkish are biased Thank you as well, turkish friend ! However it's hard to deny it's not planned and deliberate: you describe in your own words ethnical cleansing in…

Thanks for your sincere comment. I'd not like to comment about things about in Bulgaria. I've seen some photos, but I don't want to discuss this further, part because I'm not knowledgeable about to discuss it, part because I have no hard feelings.

> However it's hard to deny it's not planned and deliberate

I'd love to discuss it further, but since it's such a touchy issue, I'd like to read it from the archives themselves from all countries, but they're not accessible AFAIK from neither party. Proper books with proper sources would also do, but I can't read that fast either.

I'd try to dig the CD-ROM and find the text and images, but I can't make any promises about it. I also want to educate myself further in the issue. The family account provides the base information but, We need to know our history as objective and detailed as possible, so we can make more informed choices and decide for ourselves.

I wish that us or at most two generations down from us can see a more peaceful area around here. I live by "peace at home, peace around the world" motto, but it's getting harder every day, for everyone.

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#107

Post by enriquto »

habibur wrote: post #43
throwawaymylove wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder when the US will fully recognize the North American Native Genocide and build a monument in DC - hopefully in proportion to the monument in NYC.

I have bad feeling Turkey's president might go that route and bring it up as a retaliation.

> I have bad feeling Turkey's president might go that route and bring it up as a retaliation.

That would be a great turn of events for Turkey, Armenia, the U.S. and the world! The U.S. would have the opportunity to respond in kind, acknowledge the North American Genocide, pay reparations for it, and pressure other countries to do the corresponding thing with a very clean face.

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#108

Post by bayindirh »

andrewvc wrote: post #95
bayindirh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, thank you. Hi Bulgarian friend! The thing is, there were many nations at play at that time. I have some documents in an archaic CD-ROM about the issue. I don't want to name names, but the number of rifles collected from Armenians during that time is enough to form a small, unorganized army at the area. I don't know if I can dig the images but, they were a lot. Turks and Armenians didn't hate each other,…

I am sorry for what happened to your family. Armenians did commit some atrocities in response. I don’t condone those. I say this as an Armenian. The scale of those was small in comparison. That does not negate that the genocide happened, in which the Turk’s goal was to obliterate the Armenians as a people. WRT the documents you mention, those are probably from the contemporaneous disinformation campaign on the part o…

Thanks for your sincere reply. Yes, some ugly things have happened after-that, but I see no point in digging these things and stirring up this comment section. We shall leave these behind, and get our very valuable lessons from it.

> WRT the documents you mention, those are probably from the contemporaneous disinformation campaign on the part of the govt.

I'm not sure. The disc is very old and I only remember the photos. I'm not saying it's not, but I just don't remember. Nevertheless, I use the family account as my information foundation.

> That does not negate that the genocide happened, in which the Turk’s goal was to obliterate the Armenians as a people.

I would like to discuss it in a civilized, and informed manner but as I replied in another comment, I'd like to prepare myself first by supporting my claims by 3rd party sources. The family account tells otherwise, but I can't get more details since nobody is alive from that times, and I don't want to lower the quality of this discussion by not backing my claims with references.

As I've said numerous times, I come in peace and don't want to set the comments section ablaze unintentionally.

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#109

Post by dragonwriter »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #22
grahamjpark wrote: post #4

Interestingly this is the second article I’ve seen today about Armenia: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/24/armenia-azerbaijan-war-...

Biden has recently declared his intention to have the US formally recognize the Armenian Genocide.

responding to an inappropriately-flagged response:

> I wonder when the US will fully recognize the North American Native Genocide and build a monument in DC - hopefully in proportion to the monument in NYC.

I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened fairly soon. The current Governor of California recognized it explicitly as genocide in 2019, as did the current Secretary of the Interior, while she was in Congress (and before she was appointed the first Native American to serve in a Presidential cabinet.)

That acknowledgement is no longer a universal taboo in the American political establishment, especially for the party currently in power.

Re: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): In Depth

#110

Post by scythe »

fakedang wrote: post #86
scythe wrote: post #70

It's interesting how some genocides become more politically charged than others. Japan has trouble acknowledging their genocides, but they rarely complain when other countries do. America is generally similar. Germany has conducted a massive campaign to root out genocidal sympathies. But it's particularly surprising with Turkey, because, unlike Japan or the US, the Republic of Turkey replaced the Ottoman Empire by a…

Your premise is incorrect though. The Ottoman Empire was not directly responsible for the genocide - the Sultan didn't give orders one fine day in WW1 to massacre all Armenians. But the Turkish military men who eventually went on to depose the powerless Sultan and form the modern-day Republic of Turkey were the ones who instigated the genocide, including Ataturk himself. So yeah, the modern Republic of Turkey has eve…

The general consensus seems to be that the genocide was ordered by the Three Pashas, especially Talaat Pasha, who were the de facto rulers at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pashas

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Circular_on_April_24_1915

None of them survived to see the end of the Turkish Revolution. Ataturk was a mere lieutenant colonel at the outbreak of WWI and did not reach the Caucasus theatre until January 1916, eight months after the outbreak of genocide -- he went on to win a few crucial battles and was then shipped to the Levant.

However, Turkey did go on to deny their crimes and venerate Talaat Pasha, who played some role in the development of modern Turkish institutions. Kieser, who is likely the source of your claims, does not implicate Ataturk directly, but does emphasize the influence of Talaat on modern Turkey:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uGW1DwAAQBAJ&oi=...

but see also the counterpoint:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2019.1...

Post reply on HN